Nice article on Josh Romney's recent trip to Alaska to stump for his dad, which I found interesting mostly because the Romney team is clearly doing everything they can to campaign on all fronts.

Josh's post about the trip is here.

David French had an interesting post yesterday about Romney's war stance over at Evangelicals for Mitt. The basic question is whether Mitt is anti-war. The answer is obviously no, but Romney, unlike McCain, Thompson, and to a lesser extent Giuliani, has not over committed to any particular policy in Iraq if he were elected President. This derives from the fact that he didn't play any part in getting us into Iraq and wants to have flexibility in making decisions that would be in America's interest.

We do a disservice to ourselves when we get too wrapped up in these games. People who understand the nomination process for judges understand this. If a potential Supreme Court Appointment is on record as saying the Roe v. Wade should be overturned, that nominee is headed for trouble. It is much better to have a nominee who hopefully will not have to directly answer that question because it is so unpalatable to the other side and will result in their being torpedoed.

When we consider who is the best person to nominate for President, we know Romney does not have the baggage of Iraq and hence can appeal to those people who want someone strong on terror, without alienating independent voters who wish we had never invaded Iraq. If you buy Gingrich's "need a clean break" from the current administration, Romney is the best prospect. Part of the reason Romney is so feared by the Democrats is precisely because they will have a hard time saddling him with the anti-war sentiment in the country.

If Romney is forced into saying he would have invaded Iraq, even if he would have, that statement is going to be used with great effect in the general election against him, much like Thompson's TV ad urging the invasion will be used against him.

Strength of Conviction is another good entry in the Romney create your own ad contest. Actually, this user has several good movies. The reason I like this one is because it focuses on core Republican themes that Mitt Romney stands far above the competitors on.

At least that is Fred Thompson's voting history according to a new article by David Brody at CBN:

"The most stark example was his 1995 vote on the welfare overhaul, when he voted to preserve illegal aliens' ability to receive federal benefits. He was one of just six senators to vote that way, joining four other Republicans and one Democrat. "

He also voted against an employment verification system:

"And in 1996, as Congress considered a crackdown on illegal aliens, Mr. Thompson voted against setting up a system so employers could verify the legal status of their workers. "

Fred has a lot of explaining to do. When compared to Romney, the differences are clear. Mitt ran for governor in 2002 opposing bilingual education, and then after winning, he implemented a program making sure all kids were educated in English. His record also includes:

Opposing driver's licenses for illegals
Vetoing instate tuition for illegals
Developing a program to have state police enforce immigration laws

Romney is the only major pro-enforcement candidate in the race. The record could not be more clear.

Link to full Brody article:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/225944.aspx

Fred Thompson is having a difficult time trying to run against Washington because too often, he is actually running against, well... himself.

His discussion of the No Child Left Behind Act is just another example...

The Issue: "'We've [emphasis added] been spending increasing amounts of federal money for decades, with increasing rules, increasing mandates, increasing regulations,' Thompson said." Yes, you have.

The Problem: "'No Child Left Behind — good concept, I'm all for testing — but it seems like now some of these states are teaching to the test and kind of making it so that everybody does well on the test — you can't really tell that everybody's doing that well. And it's not objective,'" Yes, when you require kids to know math for the test, teachers tend to teach well... math.

The Solution: "Instead, he said the federal government should be providing block grants as long as states set up objective testing programs. He said his message to states would be, 'We expect you to get objective testing done and publicize those tests for the local parents and for the local citizens and suffer the political ramifications locally if things don't work out right.'" Everyone make up your own test, we'll give you the money no matter how bad you do.

You can also see Thompson complain about the problems of the No Child Left Behind Act on his Principles of Federalism page of his website.

Sound like a good Federalist? There's a little problem though: Thompson voted for the No Child Left Behind Act!

There is a current debate about the re-authorization of the No Child Left behind Act. Some people for, some against. Romney has supported the goals of federal testing:

"'We all want to be successful based on our rhetoric, not actual, measurable results, and I'm afraid that in the world marketplace, our kids are only going to be successful based on their performance, and that requires measurement,'"

"He added: 'I think the president was right to insist on measurement. I think the measurements themselves have a long way to be perfected, and a lot of room for improvement.'"

The problem with Thompson's approach is you eliminate any benefit to the program while still spending the federal dollars. If you are going to get rid of federal standards, get rid of federal funding and let the local government decide.

Since my wife taught in public schools, I am sensitive to the complaint that the desire of districts to keep the federal funds has made the federal department of education the de facto arbiter of curriculum. But we need a talented and skilled workforce to compete in the 21st century and I know Romney understands this from his business experience and that his time as Governor helps him to understand the practical interplay between the federal government and the states on this important issue.

On the other hand, I expect someone who is trying to convince me that the expansion of federal education spending tied to testing standards violates principles of federalism to not be responsible for the very program they are complaining about. "Shucks, that bill I voted for, it's awful. We should scrap that one." Thanks for reading beforehand, Senator.

Douglas Schoen says that Rudy Giuliani will not be the Republican nominee. Shoen looks at the state polls and sees a bleak picture for Giuliani. Based on the current picture of state polling, Giuliani faces the very real prospect of not winning a single state before Feb. 5:

No biggie, Giuliani's people argue - they are sitting in the catbird's seat when Feb. 5 rolls around. That's the day a half dozen big states go to the polls. But while Giuliani holds leads now in major, moderate states such as New York, Florida, California, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois, politics is like pool: The first shot changes the next one. If Giuliani loses to Romney in the first three states and to Thompson in South Carolina, a strong Super Tuesday showing is a fantasy.

This is a theme that I've been playing with for some time now. Admittedly, I am no electoral analyst, but even a cursory look at the history of electoral politics shows that Giuliani is tempting fate by banking on these large states. Says Lary Sabato in his latest entry over at the Crystal Ball (his emphasis):

Mesmerized by the numbers in fairly meaningless national surveys that mainly measure name identification and personal familiarity, the DC doyens cannot stop talking at their Georgetown cocktail parties and on their TV shows about the all-New York match-up (maybe Michael Bloomberg, too, they add excitedly). We'll see. Maybe it will end up that way, but if it does, it will be because the Empire State candidates win the campaign starting this month. Real people, even most activist voters, do not make up their mind on presidential choice until they have to do so. In Iowa and New Hampshire, still the most crucial nominating states despite all the tinkering with the schedule, voters are tough-minded and wonderfully heartless in picking the people who probably will be the general election standard-bearers. We look forward to some egg-on-face retrospectives on mainstream media coverage if those influential early voters decide to ignore the Beltway script. Should Hillary and Rudy both fall, it will be omelet-on-face treatment.

Labels: Larry Sabato, rudy

If this seems like a hit piece on Thompson... I apologize in advance. Just note... I'm not doing the hitting... I'm just the librarian.

First, from CBN's David Brody. After noting that Thompson simply misspoke. claiming that no state legislatures had approved gay marriage (California has just this last week), Brody questions aloud:

[Thompson will] take some heat for that but the larger issue for social conservatives may be this: If California start to have legislatures endorse gay marriage and have a liberal Governor sign it into law then what Thompson is saying is that he'll live with that because it didn't come from an unelected judge but rather elected representatives. How will that go over with conservative pro-family groups?

Now from a largely pro-Fred camp, Erik E from Redstate has this to say about Fred's campaign and their faux pas using "Osama" and "due process" in the same sentence:

One would hope that on the fundamental, driving issue of national security -- the issue that is driving so many as we head toward 2008 -- having to backtrack on the very basic issue of what to do with Osama would be unnecessary.

The first Thompson statement was a tacit endorsement of the Clinton policy this nation repudiated after September 11th.

And at this stage in the game, even Hillary Clinton has answered more competently on that subject that the Thompson campaign's first stab at it.

That the campaign required a second stab at that basic question makes me shudder with disbelief.

Next from the Washington Post with George Will:

Fred Thompson's plunge into the presidential pool -- more belly-flop than swan dive -- was the strangest product launch since that of New Coke in 1985. Then, the question was: Is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged.

...

"Right now"? He has been living "up there" in that upscale inside-the-Beltway Washington suburb, honing his "Aw, shucks, I'm just an ol' Washington outsider" act, for years. Long enough to have noticed that McLean is planted thick with churches. Going to church is, of course, optional -- unless you are aiming to fill some supposed piety void in the Republican field.

New Coke was announced on April 23, 1985, with the company's president piling on adjectives usually reserved for Lafite Rothschild -- "smoother, rounder yet bolder." Almost 80 days later, the public having sampled it, the company pulled the product from stores. Perhaps Thompson's candidacy will last longer than New Coke did.

Next up, Paul Weyrich from Townhall.com:

It is not entirely clear what Thompson believes. When he was Senator he seemed to support an open-borders approach to immigration. In recent speeches Thompson has not supported President George W. Bush's comprehensive immigration reform bill, which was soundly defeated.

...

If the Thompson balloon were launched high but then returned to earth, with Thompson falling behind other candidates, that would mean the several-month tease in the form of his exploratory committee would have been for naught.

Lastly, Gail Collines from the NYT:

When it comes to overhyped underperformers, Fred Thompson's entry into the presidential race was right up there with Britney Spears at the MTV awards.

The Republican Party's great tall hope announced his intentions on Jay Leno's show, and timed it to coincide with his avoidance of the candidate debate in New Hampshire. That was supposed to send the message of - what? A fear of crowds? A preference for answering questions only while seated? His performance certainly could not have been more low-key. You do not often hear somebody say "I'm running for president" in the same tone Jay's guests use to announce that they've signed on for the next season of "Dancing With the Stars."

Labels: fred thompson

I would like to introduce myself. My name is Steve. After contacting Jason Bonham, I was invited to post on this blog, which I appreciate the opportunity to do.

I'll give you a little background of who I am and why I have become a strong supporter of Mitt Romney. I started my involvement in politics in 1994, by volunteering for a Republican US Senate candidate in my home state. Then, I preceded to take a job in the state legislature as a legislative aide for the next couple of years. From there, I spent several years working for a state health association that did government relations and member services.

After that, I decided to make real money and go into sales. Over the last couple of years, I have been able to set up a health related business selling products to hospitals in the upper Midwest. Now on to the good stuff.

The 2008 election is one of critical importance and the decision of which candidate will carry the GOP banner is the most important of all. When looking at the major candidates in the field, Mitt Romney stands out as someone who has provided real leadership on both social and fiscal issues. He is the one candidate that can restore leadership in Washington and unite the party.

As someone who started their involvement in politics in 1994, I remember his US Senate candidacy in Massachusetts. About a month before the election, one poll had him within a couple points of Teddy Kennedy and I remember thinking, "It is impressive that someone as conservative as Mitt Romney is making a race of it in Massachusetts."

While he did not win that race, he did win the governorship in 2002. After getting elected Mitt did not disappoint. He went right to work cutting government spending across the board and enacting a ballot initiative that ended bilingual education (something he had supported in the 2002 campaign). The sponsors of the ballot initiative noted how rare it was to get support from a Republican candidate for governor as they had not received support like this in other states that had similar initiatives.

As you all know, over the next several years, Mitt fought aggressively against a rogue Massachusetts Supreme Court to try and preserve traditional marriage. He held the line on taxes and attempted to reduce them. Mitt vetoed provisions providing instate tuition for illegals and opposed driver's licenses for illegals as well.

Of his many accomplishments as governor, his health care initiative is particularly important. As someone who works in this field, I can tell you it is refreshing to see a Republican stand up and fight for the free market in health care in this country. Alone among the candidates running for president, Governor Romney fought to deregulate the health insurance market and grow the market for private insurance. The last which is absolutely critical to maintaining a private health system. Mitt has actually done these things, not just adopt a list of Cato Institute talking points for the election!

In the general election in 2008, Mitt will bring much to the table. He will be able to challenge the Democratic candidate from a position of strength on health care and restore Republican integrity on fiscal restraint and competence in international affairs. I look forward to working with all of you to help Mitt win this thing in 2008!

Yes or no, consider the following.

Governor Mitt Romney is proposing a tax-free savings plan for 95% of Americans. Read about it HERE:

Any taxpayer with Adjusted Gross Income of under $200,000 would pay a tax rate of absolutely 0% on all of the income they earn from their savings, capital gains and dividends.

What does that mean for YOU, Joe Blogger? Typical savings accounts these days give around 5% return...mutuals return around 8%. Typical tax rates on those savings range between 15% and 20%. The result is an annual tax of (at least) 1% on your family nest egg, which Mitt Romney wants to give back to you in full. So if you have $10,000 in savings, that's $100 every single year. Why not donate the first year of that to the man who's gonna get us there?

Donate to Mitt! 1% of your savings nest egg is a good start, and President Romney will see that you get it back every year! Already hit 1%? Say so in the comments!

Labels: fundraising team mitt, tax cuts

Team Thompson:

"There is no room in our party for this kind of smut. As the top executive of his own campaign, Gov. Romney should take full responsibility for this type of high-tech gutter politics and issue an immediate apology. In addition, Gov. Romney should exercise some of his much-touted executive acumen, take control of his flailing campaign, and immediately terminate anyone and everyone related to this outrage.

Does anyone really think Team Thompson is this angry? does anyone really think they have been hurt by this?

Here is what we can learn:

1. This is good for fodder, nothing else.

2. Either Team Thompson is really upset (wow- thin skin!), or is he living up to the website name that he is so "upset" about?

3. Thompson is excellent at playing the victim, he's done it in every campaign so far. He makes Al Sharpton look like an amateur.

Are we going to get 4 months of Thompson and his surrogates playing the victim card? Really, I thought he was going to add something to the debate, not enhance the circus.

So much for high hopes.

Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001:

"On this day, radical Islamists brought terror to our shores. It is hard for our minds to contemplate a human darkness so vile that it celebrates murder and the destruction of innocent lives. But we can honor the bright memories of the fallen. Each person, whether taken in unknowing sacrifice or resigned to death after heroic struggle, stands in our mind's eye in the brilliant light of faith and patriotism. In the years since 9/11, the spreading evil of radical Jihad has been visited on other cities around the world. Yet, our resolve remains strong. From soldiers guarding our liberty on foreign shores to those of us living under the umbrella of the protection they provide, we are united in remembering loved ones lost on that day and in our determination to protect our homeland from future attacks."

[Update]
Contest for the best guess in the comments section.

FLASH: ROMNEY FOR PRESDIENT HEADQUARTERS BROKEN INTO; LAPTOPS, TV TAKEN... DEVELOPING...

From Drudgereport

As you may know, the Romney campaign is sponsoring a whole slate of fundraising events at the end of the month. The "Rally for Romney" will be very exciting. Make sure you sign up for your local event!

Labels: fundraiser, rally for romney